Searching \ for '[OT] Software scientific calculator utilities' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=software+scientific
Search entire site for: 'Software scientific calculator utilities'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Software scientific calculator utilities'
2004\10\21@164825 by Ken Pergola

flavicon
face

FYI
---

Some cool little software scientific calculators, one is very recent, one
has been around for a while. Both are free.


Microsoft Calculator Plus (released September 2004)
-------------------------

This application allows you to complete many different types of conversions;
it also includes all the mathematical functions offered in Microsoft
Calculator.

<www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=32b0d059-b53a-4dc9
-8265-da47f157c091&DisplayLang=en>




Syntrillium Software RPN Calculator (released circa 1998)
-----------------------------------

Not sure how easy it is to find this one on the web since Adobe appears to
have acquired Syntrillium Software a while back, but I could upload this to
the PICList if no one objects to the 59 kilobyte file size.


Best regards,

Ken Pergola


____________________________________________

2004\10\21@205638 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 02:48 PM 10/21/2004, Ken Pergola wrote:

>Syntrillium Software RPN Calculator (released circa 1998)
>-----------------------------------
>
>Not sure how easy it is to find this one on the web since Adobe appears to
>have acquired Syntrillium Software a while back, but I could upload this to
>the PICList if no one objects to the 59 kilobyte file size.

<http://ware.netfirms.com/math.html> has a copy of the version I have (1.4,
I think).

dwayne


--
Dwayne Reid   <spam_OUTdwaynerTakeThisOuTspamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax

Celebrating 20 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2004)
 .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-
    `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'
Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address.
This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited
commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email.

____________________________________________

2004\10\21@211814 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
A very nice RPN calculator can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/dbergis/freeware.htm

Get: Excalibur 32-bit for Windows 95/98/NT

I use this very frequently while programming pics.  It has a "Computer
Science" mode that is quite useful for doing hex/decimal/binary math or
conversions plus logic functions.  Plus physics, scientific, business,
conversion, complex/vector, etc. modes.  And is programmable.

And of course, it has no equal.
MD

At 05:56 PM 10/21/04, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

____________________________________________

2004\10\21@232019 by Richard.Prosser

flavicon
face

An it's reverse Polish!

RP


A very nice RPN calculator can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/dbergis/freeware.htm

Get: Excalibur 32-bit for Windows 95/98/NT

I use this very frequently while programming pics.  It has a "Computer
Science" mode that is quite useful for doing hex/decimal/binary math or
conversions plus logic functions.  Plus physics, scientific, business,
conversion, complex/vector, etc. modes.  And is programmable.

And of course, it has no equal.
MD

At 05:56 PM 10/21/04, you wrote:
>At 02:48 PM 10/21/2004, Ken Pergola wrote:
>
>>Syntrillium Software RPN Calculator (released circa 1998)
>>-----------------------------------
>>
>>Not sure how easy it is to find this one on the web since Adobe appears
to
>>have acquired Syntrillium Software a while back, but I could upload this
to
>>the PICList if no one objects to the 59 kilobyte file size.
>
><http://ware.netfirms.com/math.html> has a copy of the version I have
>(1.4, I think).
>
>dwayne

____________________________________________

2004\10\22@032458 by hael Rigby-Jones

picon face
>
>A very nice RPN calculator can be found at:
>http://www.geocities.com/dbergis/freeware.htm
>
>Get: Excalibur
>32-bit for Windows 95/98/NT

>{Original Message removed}

2004\10\22@034634 by Denny Esterline

picon face
Why would anyone want that? well, anyone other than a dyslexic Pollock. :-)

Seriously though, from the perspective of someone that didn't know they
existed until (very) recently, why would RPN be 'better' or 'worse' that
the alternative (algebraic I assume)

-Denny


{Quote hidden}

____________________________________________

2004\10\22@042151 by No Religion

flavicon
face

>Syntrillium Software RPN Calculator (released circa 1998)
>-----------------------------------
>
>Not sure how easy it is to find this one on the web since Adobe appears to
>have acquired Syntrillium Software a while back, but I could upload this to
>the PICList if no one objects to the 59 kilobyte file size.

Thumbs up!

>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ken Pergola

____________________________________________

2004\10\22@064122 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> An it's reverse Polish!

> Why would anyone want that? well, anyone other than a dyslexic Pollock.
> :-)
> Seriously though, from the perspective of someone that didn't know they
> existed until (very) recently, why would RPN be 'better' or 'worse' that
> the alternative (algebraic I assume)

Are you mad ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:-)

Seriously, this is as religious subject as eg Windows/Linux, which end to
open one's eggs, or PIC versus anything else.

The true faith RPN advocates will regale you for hours with the virtues of
the system. Those who "don't get it" just consider them mad. If you haven't
given the system a reasonable try for yourself you are not qualified to
reject it. But be careful, it's about as addictive as nicotine.

As a one-time long-time HP RPN calculator user I am utterly sold on the
merits of RPN but nowadays use an el cheapo algebraic scientific calculator
for quick what ifs and usually retreat to a PC for anything serious. I owned
an HP21, HP25, HP45, HP65 and used others (35, 55, ...). HP45 was an
excellent non programmable. I still have RPN cravings occasionally.

RPN is utterly superb. A properly built RPN device is a number processing
system - not "just" a calculator. An experienced user can do things with it
which would require far greater capability on a  non RPN system. It also
takes less or equal keystrokes to perform any operation, Chained or repeated
operations can be quicker.

Using E for Enter/Push

2*3=
2E3*        same.

3*5+2 =
3E5*2+    same

If the same sum is intended but written:
2+3*5=    the answer will be wrong on many calculators
2+(3*5)= will give the correct answer.
OR
2E3E5*+  is one less than the bracketed version.
BUT if you intended (2+3)*5 you can do that as easily
2E3+5*    same as above.

Note that SOME calculators handle algebraic precedence correctly. Does
yours? Do you know what your calculator will do in a given case? RPN is
totally consistent. There are no "laws" built into the system. It does
essentially just what you tell it. IT doesn't decide when to hold off a
calculation or Perform a  sub calculation - YOU do all the deciding. And in
equal or less key strokes.

For complex expressions where people go mad on getting brackets balanced the
RPN calculator shines.

Here S = Sin
eg 2+S((6+3)^2/(4-7))  = 18 keystrokes
I've written that with all brackets in but often this is not how you meet
the problem.
With RPN you usually start intuitively at or near the "middle" of the
expression.

6E3+2^4E7-/S2+   = 14 keystrokes

You can pick out intermediate answers for saving for later use. Stop in the
middle and solve other problems and more.

Takes experiences but it's not hard and becomes intuitive. Far harder to get
lost or do nesting wrong etc.



           Russell McMahon

____________________________________________

2004\10\22@104940 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Wow, that is a great calculator!  Beats Windoze's hack all to pieces.  

It is almost impossible to find an RPN calculator anymore, after HP gave up the cause.  I have an HP algebraic on my desk now, a mere shade of it's older brother whose keyboard finally went flako.  

To answer the question below, RPN is better if you learned on RPN.  Otherwise, it is obtuse.  If you learned to drive on the left side of the road, or in a stick, that probably feels better as well, and the opposite feels uncomfortable.

-- Lawrence Kowalski, Reverse Polish Freak
Electrical and Electronic Solutions
Project Solutions Companies
http://www.projsolco.com
> {Original Message removed}

2004\10\22@111315 by Alexandre Guimaraes

face picon face
Hi,

> To answer the question below, RPN is better if you learned on RPN.
> Otherwise, it is obtuse.  If you learned to drive on the left side of the
> road, or in a stick, that probably feels better as well, and the opposite
> feels uncomfortable.
>

   RPN has some features that make it much faster when you are working with
large formulas... I remember in High scholl when my trig teacher joked with
me that I was using a HP-41 and that I would never be able to solve the huge
trig problem that was on the chalkboad with it ( He was a TI fan.. ). I told
him that I could do it faster than him... I know I know I had even less
sense at that time than I have now... The results where astonishing to me
and to him.. It took me half that time it took him to solve the same formula
!! And he was using TI's top of the line calculator.. When you have many
"levels of parenthesis" RPN is way faster and easier to use than algebraic..
I am not sure if it still makes sense nowadays because when we have larger
problems we just go to the computer and punch it in.... But it was much
faster indeed...

Best regards,
Alexandre Guimaraes

____________________________________________

2004\10\22@125926 by Stef Mientki

flavicon
face
<snip>

> RPN is utterly superb. A properly built RPN device is a number
> processing system - not "just" a calculator.

<snip>
In would agree to that (I own 4 HP machines), but ....
... the advantage of easyness disappears  when the visible screen
becomes larges.

Because most calculators (even below $5) now have at least 2 lines of 16
characters,
alfanumeric charcaters and scroll back function,
these calculators are almost just as easy to use as RPN.
(if it is required to know how calculations are done, you must use a
different instrument,
called computer ;-)

What's really above my imagination:
"*how do people get it in their mind to build a PC-calculator that looks
like normal calculator* ?"
;-  ;-)

Stef Mientki
____________________________________________

2004\10\22@132733 by John Ferrell

face picon face
One of the items that was not available on my Office Depot shopping list
yesterday was the three type "n" batteries I need for my HP 28S
calculator...
A sign of the times?

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2004\10\22@153322 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> >> An it's reverse Polish!
>
> > Why would anyone want that? well, anyone other than a dyslexic Pollock.
> > :-)
> > Seriously though, from the perspective of someone that didn't know they
> > existed until (very) recently, why would RPN be 'better' or 'worse'
that
> > the alternative (algebraic I assume)
>
> Are you mad ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Hmm... I guess I didn't realize this had such a potential to create a
religious war - My apologies to those who get caught in the crossfire.


> RPN is utterly superb. A properly built RPN device is a number processing
> system - not "just" a calculator. An experienced user can do things with
it
> which would require far greater capability on a  non RPN system. It also
> takes less or equal keystrokes to perform any operation, Chained or
repeated
> operations can be quicker.


So, basically there are advocates with worthwhile opinions on both sides of
the debate :-) In the mean time I'll continue to make my choice based on
what I can be most productive with.


> Note that SOME calculators handle algebraic precedence correctly. Does
> yours? Do you know what your calculator will do in a given case? RPN is
> totally consistent. There are no "laws" built into the system. It does
> essentially just what you tell it. IT doesn't decide when to hold off a
> calculation or Perform a  sub calculation - YOU do all the deciding. And
in
> equal or less key strokes.

Well, I recently put my venerable TI-83 plus SE out to pasture in favor of
the new TI-89 titanium, and yes it does handle algebraic precedence
correctly :-)

And really, it's not 'just' a calculator either, it a Motorola 68000
processor running at 12 MHz and a full suite of software development tools
to go with it. Normally it runs a CAS (computer algebra system) akin to
Mathmatica or Maple, but it also runs Super Mario Brothers too  :-)

And apparently it can do IIC out the link port so I can connect it to other
things... (hmm.. PIC as an IIC slave .... :-)

-Denny


____________________________________________

2004\10\22@162546 by Roberts II, Charles K.

picon face


>Denny Esterline
>
>
>Well, I recently put my venerable TI-83 plus SE out to pasture in favor
of
>the new TI-89 titanium, and yes it does handle algebraic precedence
>correctly :-)
>
>And really, it's not 'just' a calculator either, it a Motorola 68000
>processor running at 12 MHz and a full suite of software development
tools
>to go with it. Normally it runs a CAS (computer algebra system) akin to
>Mathmatica or Maple, but it also runs Super Mario Brothers too  :-)
>
>And apparently it can do IIC out the link port so I can connect it to
other
>things... (hmm.. PIC as an IIC slave .... :-)
>
>-Denny

Denny

Go to http://www.ticalc.org they have all sorts of project info and cool
software for the TI series of calculators. But remember the site is
frequented by teens and college kids and it shows. But they have some
neat stuff.

And TI has a SDK for the TI 89 on there website. I have the page on my
favorites at home. All you need is a USB to TI link cable and you can
write all sorts of neat stuff for it.

Chuck

____________________________________________

2004\10\22@181330 by Neil Cherry

picon face
John Ferrell wrote:
> One of the items that was not available on my Office Depot shopping list
> yesterday was the three type "n" batteries I need for my HP 28S
> calculator...
> A sign of the times?

You can get them at Radio Shack and I think my local Lowe's has them
(but no AAA, hmm).

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       .....ncherryKILLspamspam@spam@comcast.net
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/               (Text only)
http://hcs.sourceforge.net/                     (HCS II)
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
____________________________________________

2004\10\22@192532 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 22, 2004, at 8:12 AM, Alexandre Guimaraes wrote:

>> RPN is better if you learned on RPN.

I never particularly used or like rpn, but it seems to me that it
gives you more flexibility in the ordering of item entry vs operator
execution than an algebraic calculator, by virtue of having an implicit
set of memory locations (dating back to a time when few calculators had
an explicit memory capability, and still few have more than one memory.)

ie, if you want to do 3*(4+5) on an algebraic caclulator, you have to
do something to ensure proper evaluation order before you enter the
first number of the sum (either by starting with the sum or by using
your parens.  I'm so glad most serious calculators added parens!)  With
RPN you can enter at least the first two numbers, before you need to
start worrying about evaulation order...

Forth is interesting.  As is postscript.

BillW

____________________________________________

2004\10\22@195544 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 22, 2004, at 12:37 PM, Denny Esterline wrote:

> And really, it's not 'just' a calculator either, it a Motorola 68000
> processor running at 12 MHz and a full suite of software development
> tools
> to go with it.

Surely a "coldfire" of some kind rather than an actual 68k!?

Sounds a lot like a PDA, except last-genaration (68k) PDAs are much
cheaper
than state-of-the-art calculators, and usually have additional
capabilities.

BillW

____________________________________________

2004\10\22@220718 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> On Oct 22, 2004, at 12:37 PM, Denny Esterline wrote:
>
> > And really, it's not 'just' a calculator either, it a Motorola 68000
> > processor running at 12 MHz and a full suite of software development
> > tools
> > to go with it.
>
> Surely a "coldfire" of some kind rather than an actual 68k!?
>
> Sounds a lot like a PDA, except last-genaration (68k) PDAs are much
> cheaper
> than state-of-the-art calculators, and usually have additional
> capabilities.
>
> BillW

I haven't actually pryed it open to see, but that's what I read. However,
considering it's miserly current consumption, it's certainly not an
original 68k.

-Denny


____________________________________________

2004\10\22@222414 by Ken Pergola

flavicon
face

No Religion wrote:

> Thumbs up!

Hi,

I'm not sure if this means you like that calculator by Syntrillium, or that
you want me to post it as an attachment to the PICList. It does not seem
anyone is really interested it in, so if you would like a copy just send me
a private e-mail and I'll send it to you.

Best regards,

Ken Pergola


____________________________________________

2004\10\22@222431 by Ken Pergola

flavicon
face

Lawrence Lile wrote:


> Wow, that is a great calculator!  Beats Windoze's hack all to pieces.

Hi Lawrence,

Did you try Microsoft's recently released 'Calculator Plus' that I mentioned
in this thread? It also provides various conversions, so it seems to be an
improvement over the original Calculator.

Best regards,

Ken Pergola


____________________________________________

2004\10\23@014048 by hilip Stortz

picon face
the 68K was discontinued, but i think they may still be making the
version with an 8 bit bus.  there are microcontrollers based on the 68k
family as well, but the original 68k is gone, finally, it lasted a long
time for a processor, i think it was only last year that they finally
pulled the plug.  not bad at all.

Denny Esterline wrote:
------
> > BillW
>
> I haven't actually pryed it open to see, but that's what I read. However,
> considering it's miserly current consumption, it's certainly not an
> original 68k.
-------
--
Some people embrace change and the unknown.  Some people are afraid of
the unknown and change.  George Bush is not only
afraid of change, he is afraid of the present.  George Bush's world is
based on fear and distrust, he is incapable of
trusting anyone or of receiving love and joy.  The world only makes
sense to Bush when there is a threat, if Al Queda
did not exist Bush would have to invent them for the world to make sense
to him.  Do we want a leader who's life is
based on fear and distrust or one who will embrace change and the
unknown and lead us with hope into a more joyful
future?
<http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/columnists/9963983.htm?1c> <http://www.leinsdorf.com/2004/Soaries.htm>
<www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6505.htm>
____________________________________________

2004\10\23@051522 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 22, 2004, at 10:42 PM, Philip Stortz wrote:

> the 68K was discontinued, but i think they may still be making the
> version with an 8 bit bus.  there are microcontrollers based on the 68k
> family as well, but the original 68k is gone

It looks to me like freescale claims the 68000 is still being made,
although I guess in it's now the 68hc000 in cmos...

When I said "not an actual 68k", I meant to include all the 'real'
68000 derivatives, including 680x0 and 683xx high-integration chips.
The coldfire CPU, while apparently maintaining a lot of 68k
compatibility,
did away with some of the features that made it more difficult to make
the CPU go fast.  I'm not sure of the details; coldfire was too little
too late for us; we'd already gone to mips and ppc.  (It's a bit
troubling that a 68k vs coldfire comparison doesn't leap out from
the freescale pages.  Sigh.)  I had thought  that only coldfire had
gone on to do low power versions, but apparently I was wrong there;
the 68k page specifically mentions a low power variant...


BillW

____________________________________________

2004\10\25@072719 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Well, I recently put my venerable TI-83 plus SE
>out to pasture
...
>And apparently it can do IIC out the link port so
>I can connect it to other things...
>(hmm.. PIC as an IIC slave .... :-)

Only if you do some programming of the port on the calculator. The native
data format out that port is not I2C, but if you go looking out on the web
there are guys who have attached I2C National Semiconductor temperature
sensors to that port.

____________________________________________

2004\10\29@123411 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>
>>> RPN is better if you learned on RPN.

Someone just said, off in another forum:

>
>> HP has restarted selling RPN calculators - I saw them at Fry's a few
>> weeks ago.
>
> i checked on amazon and, yeah, they have them again!
>         HP-33S - $52.99
>

BillW

____________________________________________

2004\10\29@131401 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 09:34 AM 10/29/2004 -0700, you wrote:

>>>>RPN is better if you learned on RPN.
>
>Someone just said, off in another forum:
>
>>
>>>HP has restarted selling RPN calculators - I saw them at Fry's a few
>>>weeks ago.
>>
>>i checked on amazon and, yeah, they have them again!
>>         HP-33S - $52.99
>
>BillW

Hybrid RPN-Algebraic. It's $49.99 + shipping (USA only) from
HP's online store.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speffspamKILLspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com




____________________________________________

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...